With Muslim, Croatian, and Serbian journalists and historians as contributors, Burn This House portrays the chain of events that led to the recent wars in the heart of Europe. Comprised of critical, nonnationalist voices from the former Yugoslavia, this volume elucidates the Balkan tragedy while directing attention toward the antiwar movement and the work of the independent media that have largely been ignored by the U.S. press. Updated since its first publication in 1997, this expanded edition, more relevant than ever, includes material on new developments in Kosovo.
The contributors show that, contrary to descriptions by the Western media, the roots of the warring lie not in ancient Balkan hatreds but rather in a specific set of sociopolitical circumstances that occurred after the death of Tito and culminated at the end of the Cold War. In bringing together these essays, Serbian-born sociologist Jasminka Udovicki and Village Voice Washington correspondent James Ridgeway provide essential historical background for understanding the turmoil in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo and expose the catalytic role played by the propaganda of a powerful few on all sides of what eventually became labeled an ethnic dispute.
Burn This House offers a poignant, informative, and fully up-to-date explication of the continuing Balkan tragedy.

Contributors. Sven Balas, Milan Milosevi´c Branka Prpa-Jovanovi´c, James Ridgeway, Stipe Sikavica, Ejub Stitkovac, Mirko Tepavac, Ivan Torov, Jasminka Udovicki, Susan Woodward

Speculate This! is a concise, provocative manifesto advocating practices of "affirmative speculation" over and against contemporary forms of speculation that quantify and contain risk to generate financial profit for a privileged few. This latter mode of speculation is predatory and familiar, its fallout evident in ongoing environmental degradation, in restrictive legal claims on natural resources in distant lands, and in the foreclosures, evictions, and unemployment resulting from the financial collapse of 2007–08. While such exploitive speculation seeks to reduce uncertainty and pin down the future, the affirmative practices championed by the authors of Speculate This! engage uncertainty, contingency, and difference, and they multiply, rather than reduce, possible futures. In these affirmative practices, social relations and the creation of goods and knowledge are not driven by the desire for financial gain or professional status. Whether manifest in open-source software, eco-communes, global activist movements, community credit networks, or experimental art, speculative living affirms our commonality. As a collaborative work coauthored by a group of anonymous scholars, Speculate This! argues for and embodies affirmative speculation.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
—Amendment II, United States Constitution

The Second Amendment is regularly invoked by opponents of gun control, but H. Richard Uviller and William G. Merkel argue the amendment has nothing to contribute to debates over private access to firearms. In The Militia and the Right to Arms, or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent, Uviller and Merkel show how postratification history has sapped the Second Amendment of its meaning. Starting with a detailed examination of the political principles of the founders, the authors build the case that the amendment's second clause (declaring the right to bear arms) depends entirely on the premise set out in the amendment's first clause (stating that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state). The authors demonstrate that the militia envisioned by the framers of the Bill of Rights in 1789 has long since disappeared from the American scene, leaving no lineal descendants. The constitutional right to bear arms, Uviller and Merkel conclude, has evaporated along with the universal militia of the eighteenth century.

Using records from the founding era, Uviller and Merkel explain that the Second Amendment was motivated by a deep fear of standing armies. To guard against the debilitating effects of militarism, and against the ultimate danger of a would-be Caesar at the head of a great professional army, the founders sought to guarantee the existence of well-trained, self-armed, locally commanded citizen militia, in which service was compulsory. By its very existence, this militia would obviate the need for a large and dangerous regular army. But as Uviller and Merkel describe the gradual rise of the United States Army and the National Guard over the last two hundred years, they highlight the nation's abandonment of the militia ideal so dear to the framers. The authors discuss issues of constitutional interpretation in light of radically changed social circumstances and contrast their position with the arguments of a diverse group of constitutional scholars including Sanford Levinson, Carl Bogus, William Van Alstyne, and Akhil Reed Amar.  

Espousing a centrist position in the polarized arena of Second Amendment interpretation, this book will appeal to those wanting to know more about the amendment's relevance to the issue of gun control, as well as to those interested in the constitutional and political context of America's military history.